Don't mean to go all Four Yorkshiremen on you, but you'd be hard-pressed to find an Internet connection worse than Afghanistan.
Everything is via satellite, filtered, over-subscribed, and frequently wrecked by weather.
Talk about making the inner child frown.

You don't even have to go so far afield as that. I've always found internet connections in Greece to be pretty flaky. Hell, it wasn't that long ago you could barely make a phone call there. And here in Australia, there are lots of places where you won't get any kind of connection, for example Cocklebiddy [wikipedia.org], whose sole claim to fame is that it has a Wikipedia entry.

Before someone makes the wisecrack that they used their 2.4k accoustic coupler modem uphill both ways in the snow I'd like to point out that thermal noise and thus BER is significantly smaller at low temperatures.

It's also worth pointing out that much faster modems were readily available by the time Linux was officially released for the first time... My cousin was using a 9600bps modem when Linus first released it, and less than a year later I was using a 14,400 external modem.

My first modem was this 900 baud monstrosity that a friend gave to me(he "upgraded" to a 2400!). It was slightly faster than having someone just read the code off to you over the phone and type it in yourself.

We didn't have that inter-whats-it thingy back then. Just modems and some really high long distance phone bills if you wanted anything that was located out of town.

It's going away, as in: it's no longer the default compiler. And I can't see them ever upgrading the version of gcc from the current one. But I can't see any reason why they'd remove gcc from the distribution of XCode in the foreseeable future. It does no harm to have the binaries sitting there. And some people will have custom build scripts that still use it for some arcane reason.

As you say most people couldn't give a damn about gcc on OSX. LLVM is a far superior compiler.

How do you define "far superior"? According to most benchmarks, LLVM still has some miles to go before it produces binaries that are faster than gcc (it does produce a few special cases where LLVM is faster though so it does show promise for the future). For example check out: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc_46_llvm29&num=1 [phoronix.com]

Thanks for the benchmarks. That's interesting, and does indeed show that for some purposes where raw speed is vital, a final compile using GCC would be beneficial.

My view of LLVM/Clang being far superior is down to developer productivity. LLVM/Clang does fantastic static analysis of code, finding many more coding errors than GCC can. And it does this whilst still providing faster compilation times than GCC.

Apple is unable to ship the version of GCC benchmarked there, because of GPLv3. LLVM produces much better code than GCC 4.2.1, which is the last GPLv2 version, and the version that Apple ships.

Also, be aware that none of those benchmarks were for Objective-C, which is the language that Apple cares the most about. In terms of features, GCC now lags there. It doesn't support automatic reference counting, for example, and this gives a nice performance boost when coupled with the optimisations in LLVM (fewer autoreleased objects, faster reference count modifications, complete elision of some operations where it can prove that retains and releases are not needed).

Clang is also pretty modular. If you use XCode, the IDE is doing syntax highlighting using the same front end that it uses for compiling with clang. It's displaying error messages as you type via the same mechanism. The integrated static analysis and ARC migration tools are also implemented as Clang libraries and just called from XCode.

Xcode 4.something is going free once Lion is released.
gcc is still included in Xcode, iirc, it will be gone in 4.2 or 4.3 (this was explained during WWDC). The gcc less xcode is going to be released around hte same time as iOS 5. "i686-apple-darwin10-gcc-4.2.1" is installed with 4.0.1
Xcode right now, iirc, defaults to LLVM, but if you want you can change it to GCC or LLVM/GCC

They'll probably still charge you $4.99 for Xcode. Not terrible, but not great. Finding out gcc4 was not included in the paid version of Xcode... now that was terrible.

Apple is moving away from GCC and to Clang and LLVM. This is due partially to the GPLv3 (and the patent issues involved, and this is why Apple will never use the current version of GCC), and partly due to LLVM+Clang being quite an improvement over GCC (although it's presently a mixed bag, looking forward this is a good way to go).

As for the pricing of Xcode 4, it will be kind of disappointing if a license isn't included with Lion. $4.99 is a steal though, so it's difficult to complain too much, but one of t

Strange, then why I'm getting way over twice as long execution times on clang as on gcc? Both on amd64 and armel.

Not tested on Macs, but I doubt code that does little I/O would be markedly different between platforms.For example:git clone git://gitorious.org/crawl/crawl.git(compile, both with flto and -O9)time./crawl -rc test/stress/woken_rest -sprint -sprint-map dungeon_sprint_1gcc: 12.609sclang: 28.570s

Having an abysmal support for C++ standards and terrible diagnostics doesn't sway things towards clang

That actually, quite impressively, fails to make sense on so many levels. But the most direct is that Apple can never stop shipping Xcode while there isn't something to replace it, and there's nothing out, coming out, or even whispered about, to replace it.

XCode is a 4GB download all by itself and is only used by a tiny fraction of Mac users. Why on Earth would Apple want to add that to the already 4GB Lion download? That would be a ludicrous waste of bandwidth, time, and disk space.

What the hell do they put into that package to make it 4 GB? Isn't XCode just an IDE and a compiler bundled together?

There are tons of libraries and frameworks for the current version of OS X as well as for past versions of OS X (for cross-compiling projects) and now for different versions of iOS, since the iOS SDK is included. There are also sample projects and an interface builder and debuggers and probably lots of other neat things that I'm not even aware of.

What you install to your hard drive may not end up being that big since there is a lot of optional stuff included in the main XCode download. So no, it's not just an IDE and a compiler. And it would be quite silly of Apple to include something so huge and unnecessary with every download of Lion. Anyone who wants it can just download it separately.

They all used to be in the applications and utilities folder. What could possibly be simpler than that? And now it forces users to open an online account with Apple. That's not very nice.. There's no mention in the article, does it come down as a burnable iso? And how screwed are the people who just don't happen to have fast internet?

It doesn't come as a burnable ISO, but people that lack fast Internet aren't necessarily screwed, since Apple is allowing anyone to use the Wi-Fi in their retail stores to download the OS. Presumably, they'd have it cached on-site in their stores so that it wouldn't take long at all.

And most Mac users already created an account with Apple anyway. Their online store, iTunes Store, iOS App Store, Mac App Store, etc. have all had linked IDs for years now, so if someone ever purchased anything from any of those

people that lack fast Internet aren't necessarily screwed, since Apple is allowing anyone to use the Wi-Fi in their retail stores to download the OS.

Does this apply to Apple Authorized Resellers as well, or does it apply only to "Apple Store"? These may be well over an hour's drive away from even a substantial city; for example, there are only two in Indiana. And does it apply to iMac and Mac mini, or only to MacBook?

people that lack fast Internet aren't necessarily screwed, since Apple is allowing anyone to use the Wi-Fi in their retail stores to download the OS.

Oh, that's OK then. It's not like most of the people who lack fast internet lack it because they live a long way from the big cities where Apple stores tend to be located, or anything. I'm sure they'll be very happy to pay 500 times the cost of mailing a DVD in gas just to get their OS upgrade.

Yes, you can burn it to a disc, or put it on a flash drive, or whatever you want. It also makes a restore partition on your drive by default (apparently some 650MB, but I'm not sure on that--seems like it would have to be bigger) from which you can reinstall OS X (or boot into Safari-only mode). Wish it wasn't mandatory, but I could see it being useful--and you can go and delete it if you want to.

There is a DMG within the download that you can restore to a DVD or flash drive and it works fine, yes. The recovery partition boots a minimal version of OS X in which you can restore Lion but you have to log in to your Apple account and download it which makes the recovery partition a lot less useful.

Restore partitions are garbage. They promote overconfidence and make people neglect to back things up. Then, when they restore, presto! Not just their data but all their applications are gone, except for the apps on the original install disk.

They all used to be in the applications and utilities folder. What could possibly be simpler than that?

Go to the the "Spotlight" menu and type the first few letters of the application name.

That said, I'm not convinced that LaunchPad is going to be all that useful when you have a few dozen applications installed--kind of like how the iPhone tends to get messy when you have a few dozen applications installed.

But don't worry--you can still go to the Applications and Utilities folders.

And how screwed are the people who just don't happen to have fast internet?

Have you seen how large OS and Application updates are now? Pretty much everything seems to require a fast connection. Even slashdot has bloated (58,633 B for an article with 898,406 B of inline elements, adding up to almost 1MB for a single page). It seems that slow connections are no longer really considered that much when people design stuff. Even slow DSL (although still "broadband") is now causing problems with not being fast enough sometimes.

That is why Apple is allowing you to download on their connection at the Apple store and why we Windows guys have WSUS Offline [wsusoffline.net] that lets you have EVERY version of Windows from XP 32bit to Windows 7 64 bit plus all the office versions from XP on up, all either burned to DVD or on a flash stick so all it takes is a single friend/relative with a decent connection. I have been using it for awhile now so I even have the complete Win2K in case I run into one of those that needs the final updates.

1: Go to Apple store.2: Use one of their computers to download the Lion update.3: Copy onto a flash drive.4: Go home.5: Update computer.

Of course, this is no help if, like the guy commenting above, your nearest Apple store is 1,500km away. There *aren't* even any Apple stores in my country. But Lion is beginning to make me think that when Snow Leopard gets too old and tired to continue I'll be swapping back to Arch, so that's no trouble for me anyway.

They all used to be in the applications and utilities folder. What could possibly be simpler than that?

Well, since you asked... what's easier is a "home page" that automatically appears, and automatically contains the icons of all your apps -- similar to how it works on the iPhone/iPad.

I agree it's a bit silly, but if it keeps me from having to tell my grandmother over the phone to "double click on the hard drive icon in the corner of the screen", and then spend the next 10 minutes explaining what a hard drive is, what the icon looks like (who outside of computer geeks knows that internal hard drives look li

It's really more than "a bit silly" it's Apple's move to make the computer a consumer device like the iPod. Apple's vision is that the non-mobile devices become, essentially, static iPhone/iPad with large screens and storage, with Apple getting its 30% cut of every revenue stream that transits the device.

However, I didn't sign up with Apple computers 25 years ago because it was "Computers for Dummies". Windows is the corporate computer, and Linux is and always will be for guys with lots of free time and a burning desire to swear like a sailor any time you need to attach hardware. Where have you gone, Computer for the Rest of Us??

Wow, you managed to fail to make sense on many levels again! This isn't reddit, you don't have to live up to your novelty username.

They all used to be in the applications and utilities folder.

Apps that aren't on your computer used to be in those folders?

What could possibly be simpler than that?

Not much, really. But since that's not how it's ever been, the Mac App Store is quite a bit easier than the way things actually were before. Before, you had to go to the store and browse the shelves, or order discs online, or buy online from various different digital storefronts.

And now it forces users to open an online account with Apple. That's not very nice..

With Lion coming from the App Store you need to have OS X installed to install OS X. What happens if you buy a new hard drive? Have your hard drive partition table lose a leg? How do you get 10.7 on your Mac? Apple won't say just yet.

Those who have broken their NDAs suggest there might be workarounds with delving into the.mpkg files and such, or that Apple might force you to install Snow Leopard and then upgrade from there. Neither option is particularly desirable.

Well, the rash assumption is that you're going to want to move stuff from the old hard drive to the new one. So, at least briefly, you'll have two hard drives. Run the installer and tell it to install Mac OS X 10.7 Lion on the new hard drive.

Have your hard drive partition table lose a leg?

Take it to the local Apple Store and have them fix it. And, while you're there, consider throwing out your flaky machine and getting teh new shiny or, at least, a cool cover for your iPad...;^D

The big things of interest for OS X to me, as someone who likes efficiency and stability out of his systems, are:

* will they finally fix the horrible threading and context switching implementation so that running something like a spreadsheet program with a large spreadsheet not cause the gnashing of teeth? (This has been a problem since the beginning of 10.x, but I started notcing it around 10.4 with the Intel macs and able to compare apples to apples - ie linux or Windows on the same hardware).* HFS+ replacement so IO won't be a horrendous bottleneck?* Better wifi implementation so that the macs I've got to deal with are not the main ones to have signal issues? (Seriously, when macs have more issues with APs than XP, you know you've got issue. You can't completely say it's the hardware, because Linux on the same systems is at least better...)* will they allow me to do what I want with the 'dock' and the sparse UI elements, or am I restricted to using it how they say I should (particularly as it pertains to multitasking/not multitasking: it doesn't matter if they make that not suck at the techincal level if the UI is still horribly crippled).

Better wifi implementation so that the macs I've got to deal with are not the main ones to have signal issues? (Seriously, when macs have more issues with APs than XP, you know you've got issue. You can't completely say it's the hardware, because Linux on the same systems is at least better...)

Interesting, I've had exactly the opposite problem. With the Macs we've got around, wi-fi has been set it and forget it - it always works. The XP/7 laptops seem to consistently have issues with randomly dropping their connections to the access points (well, technically the connections look like they're still there, but the computers just seem unable to send or receive bits for a while...).

Haven't really seen any Linux laptops in the wild, so I can't say how they've fared.

And, more to the point, is DriveVault actually useful yet? I did use it, but it doesn't work properly with Time Machine, so I had to pick between encryption and backups. I chose backups, and when the hard disk in my laptop died I was very glad that I did. Given that most laptops as single-user devices, the sane way of implementing it would have been to have an encrypted disk image on the backup disk that was mounted and then do the normal backup stuff to that while the user is logged in. Instead, they r

And, more to the point, is DriveVault actually useful yet? I did use it, but it doesn't work properly with Time Machine, so I had to pick between encryption and backups. I chose backups, and when the hard disk in my laptop died I was very glad that I did. Given that most laptops as single-user devices, the sane way of implementing it would have been to have an encrypted disk image on the backup disk that was mounted and then do the normal backup stuff to that while the user is logged in. Instead, they required you to log off and then run the backup as another user, just copying segments of the encrypted disk image.

I haven't had access to Lion, so I haven't had a chance to try any of this. If what you say is accurate (meaning it's what I end up seeing as well), that'll be quite disappointing. Under those circumstances I'd have to make the same choice you did - but it's rather silly if it's an either/or situation. It sounds like basically the same situation as currently exists with FileVault, which renders it not particularly useful.

My experiences from the last two major OS X updates (meaning 10.5.0 and 10.6.0) has, to

1) 10.7 can be burned to a DVD or dumped to a USB Flash Key and installed off of. It does NOT require an existing installation of 10.6.8 to INSTALL. You only need an existing 10.6.8 installation to download it- IF you want to get it from the Mac App Store. The relevant file is called "InstallESD.dmg" and weighs in at around 4GB. It is essentially a restore image of what you would otherwise find on a shipping DVD. It comes with what you get off the Mac App Store.

2) 10.7 does NOT REQUIRE AN APPLE ID.

There is NO PROTECTION in 10.7 against piracy. There is NO ONLINE ACTIVATION. There is NO receipt checking through the Mac App Store. For all intensive purposes, it is IDENTICAL to 10.6.8 in that the Mac App Store is just another application in/Applications. The operating system IN NO WAY attempts to verify the legality of your installation, nor does it case.

You can install, configure, and use your machine WITHOUT creating an Apple ID. It is -TOTALLY- optional.

3) 10.7 Server does NOT REQUIRE AN APPLE ID. The Server administration bits come as a single app ("Server.app") that downloads and installs Server Essentials, which is basically all the server side stuff (Open Directory, PostFix, etc). This application does NOT attempt to verify the legality of your "server" NOR DOES IT REQUIRE A SERIAL. Just like #2- if you obtain Server.app from some other place, you can install and use it on a Mac OS X 10.7 system without the need for an Apple ID, or even an internet connection after the Server Essentials packages have been downloaded!

So, please, stop spreading FUD!

10.7 is identical to 10.6. You can clean install it. You don't need 10.6, except for the initial download (which Apple expects you'll do legally- through the Mac App Store). You do not need an Apple ID for anything (you don't loose functionality).

The only thing that has changed- is that Apple is going the digital *distribution* route. They have NOT gone the "digital distribution and locked down DRM and online activation" route.

10.7 can be burned to a DVD or dumped to a USB Flash Key and installed off of. It does NOT require an existing installation of 10.6.8 to INSTALL.

Uh...doesn't there need to be a Mac OS X installation somewhere if you want to install Mac OS X 10.7 Lion? Otherwise, what's going to magically read your DVD or USB Flash Key? And I rashly assume that you can't run the installer if your machine has booted into 10.5.x...

The restore system. InstallESD.dmg contains a bootable version of OS X much like the 10.6 installer. Except things work a little differently now:

1) The installer is split into two stages. The first creates a recovery partition on your disk drive, and dumps the OS X installer and a nifty repair/utility system to it.2) The second stage occurs after the first has completed. The system reboots onto the fresh recovery partition, and restores the operating system off it.

The difference between a clean install and an install-from-your-existing-system is only the first stage. If you're installing from 10.6.x, then you're running a tool that does #1 under your existing OS and then reboots to perform #2. If you're installing from a USB key or DVD-R, then the bootable system on the disk is performing step #1 for you, then rebooting to continue with #2.

The installer might just work under 10.5, I haven't checked. Apple says you need 10.6.x to download Lion (which you do). If you already have the Lion *.app bundle saved somewhere else (this is the same bundle that contains the aforementioned InstallESD.dmg file), then you might be able to copy it to a 10.5 OS and run it from there. The only reason why this wouldn't work is if Apple is checking for it and actively denying attempts; or if 10.5 is lacking some runtime component or framework that the *.app installer requires.

Again, the situation is far more flexible and far less 1984 then people are currently freaking about. The only thing that has changed is the (primary) method of distribution. In fact, given that Server doesn't even need a serial anymore (and doesn't attempt to authenticate with the Mac App Store- that would be stupid), things have gotten considerably simpler (anyone remember the serialnumberd issues in 10.6 where a dual-homed server would see itself and invalidate it's license?)...

Why do you say you need to be running 10.6 to download 10.6.8? What if you only had 10.5? 10.1? What if, by some happenstance, your only computer with a hard disk that still booted was Windows or Linux?

10.7 can be burned to a DVD or dumped to a USB Flash Key and installed off of. It does NOT require an existing installation of 10.6.8 to INSTALL.

Uh...doesn't there need to be a Mac OS X installation somewhere if you want to install Mac OS X 10.7 Lion? Otherwise, what's going to magically read your DVD or USB Flash Key? And I rashly assume that you can't run the installer if your machine has booted into 10.5.x...

Umm, no. You are very confused. Unless that was meant as a joke. How could anyone ever install an operating system if you needed an operating system installed to install an operating system? Google "BIOS" and "bootable DVD".

Every OS X intall disc has been a bootable image (already containing a fully bootable copy of OS X) that allows installation onto a clean hard drive. The Lion installer contains the same standard bootable disc image. The only difference is that the computer can apparently be booted from that disc image while it is still just sitting on the hard drive (if you are running Snow Leopard 10.6.8). That is, Lion REQUIRES no external boot media, but it can still be used from external boot media if you so choose, and if you have the very simple knowledge to open Disk Utility on ANY Mac and "restore" the DMG file onto a DVD or USB flash drive or external USB or FireWire or Thunderbolt hard drive. Anyone who "administrates" Macs should already know how to do this, so I'm really not sure why so many Mac admins are freaking out about the no-media policy. Some "Real" Mac admins are probably out there somewhere NetInstalling the new Lion install image on hundreds of machines at the same time as we speak.

If you are running anything prior to Snow Leopard 10.6.8, you will of course have to either upgrade your machine to Snow Leopard first or or use external install media just as you would with a clean machine. Either way, not really a big deal. Seriously.

No, not yet. As opposed to Windows which has had annoying online activation since Windows XP, not to mention the whole "Windows genuine advantage" thing.

And even where Apple has gone for lock-down and digital distribution, we've at least seen a quid-pro-quo in terms of prices and terms of use (20 quid for Lion, 35 quid for Lion server, one purchase covers all your macs...) The only exception is with books, and I suspect that's because of the publishers, not Apple.

I am stuck with Hughesnet, due to living in the boonies. They impose a 425 megabyte limit on my downloads even at the $100 a month plan. The only time it is unlimited is between 2am-7am, which I'm betting isn't enough time to grab an entire OSX distribution. Just getting XCode and the iOS SDK became a race against time once the file hit the 4gb range.
I guess I can stay up until 2, then set an alarm for 7 to pause the Mac App Store download until 2 am the next morning. But still, I'd really like to just pay a few extra bucks and have them ship me a DVD. It doesn't even have to come in a fancy box.

In most cases people who have "unlimited" plans get traffic shaping to 64KB after a couple of GB are downloaded, or they get charged extra. I wonder how this is going to pan out for those users who normally never exceed their limits, and naïvely think that upgrading the OS would fall within normal usage patterns.

I am stuck with Hughesnet, due to living in the boonies. They impose a 425 megabyte limit on my downloads even at the $100 a month plan. The only time it is unlimited is between 2am-7am, which I'm betting isn't enough time to grab an entire OSX distribution. Just getting XCode and the iOS SDK became a race against time once the file hit the 4gb range.
I guess I can stay up until 2, then set an alarm for 7 to pause the Mac App Store download until 2 am the next morning. But still, I'd really like to just pay a few extra bucks and have them ship me a DVD. It doesn't even have to come in a fancy box.

Just wait mid-July, sure there will be a torrent somewhere that you can download during a few nights.

You have several options...1. Find someone local you know to buy/download it for you. Have them burn the file to a DVD.2. Find someone you trust online to get it for you and mail you the DVD.3. Download it from work (becomes more of an issue if you don't have a Mac laptop, but still doable.)4. Local Coffee House/McDonalds and plenty of coffee...

As far as I know, it's 64bit Macs only. That's great for us developers, no more 32bit binaries to create when you go 10.7 only! The 32bit Cocoa runtime is totally outdated and creates quite a few problems for modern development.

>Apple will still offer the disk in stores, Google it. You'll find that Apple employees have confirmed that users with bandwidth restrictions or users without an internet connection can still update by buying a disk in store.

Hopefully you also mean they will sell to people who just want a nice shiny factory pressed DVD, want to pay using good old American cash, or just don't want to hassle with a huge download even over a "fast" connection.

$29? For a software update? And you're happy about it? Wow. I've been running Windows XP for almost 10 years, and haven't spent another dime on it.

Upgrading a 10.x Mac to 10.7 is something like upgrading a Windows XP machine to Windows 7. How much would Microsoft charge you to do that?

Of course, if your main goal is to never spend a dime on your computer, then as a Mac owner you would be free to continue running your pre-installed version of MacOS/X without upgrading. Nobody is forcing anyone to upgrade.

It will install onto a blank drive - you only need 10.6.8 (or higher) to be able to download it from the App Store. You can then save that onto a USB stick or burn to DVD.

You don;t need to put Snow Leopard back on, and then upgrade over it immediately, it will simply install onto a fresh drive if you want to, eg in the case of a drive failure or upgrade, or installing onto a second volume or into a VM.